That was an endemic aspect of Amorim's time at United and his rigid risk averse football. This video is a decent breakdown of just how dogmatic Amorim was with his system.
He was no Alex Ferguson that's for sure.
Ruben Amorim | Sacked
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
-
In the latest edition of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood), Imran (@Annihilate Now!) & Jamie (@Vault Dweller) celebrate a fantastic victory as Manchester United won 2-0 in the Derby. They celebrate the changes Carrick has made, discuss our new coaching team and find time to play a Stupid Game. Enjoy!
- Status
That was an endemic aspect of Amorim's time at United and his rigid risk averse football. This video is a decent breakdown of just how dogmatic Amorim was with his system.
He was no Alex Ferguson that's for sure.
Agreed. That's why I believed that he wasn't worth it regardless of results, his mindset is simply wrong. But his communication makes it even worse to me because in my opinion he is dishonest.
That should have been the plan but I don't really remember seeing it a lot. It was the outer CBs pushing into areas you'd expect FBs to be but I don't think there was much pushing up into a midfield spot. In theory, you certainly have a point. But I don't think thats what we tried. (From my understanding, thats also not how his Sporting team worked)
I can see your train of thought but from my personal perception, I'd say it puts a little too much meaning there. As you said, 2nd goal comes from a well done one-two against a pretty decently set up team in that situation (so not as if we really worked the ball) and the 1st goal is Mejbri for some reason moving away from the most dangerous man of the opponent to leave his FB alone against two. I'll happily revisit the idea that we make better use of the ball when it becomes a repeated pattern tomorrow and in the games going forward. For now - I'd say its at least as much a wish to see something as it is really something.
Not sure, I understand. I don't think we dominated or were more controlling, certainly not this season. We did generate opportunities though, though I also wouldn't call it by playing great attacking football but by creating chaos and exploiting that by making use of our talented players - I agree, it definitely felt like moments football. I also didn't bring up the stat, I just asked why the poster thought it was something that be brought into the fletcher thread.
I meant it worked in terms of generating a decent enough output in chances and goals. I think, it is safe to say that we didn't suffer from scoring too few goals but from conceding way too many.
I suppose they are seen as leading figures and as long as they are there, other players might not step up. I don't want to make them the scapegoat or the reason for our struggles, you are right, we have suffered just as much from bringing players in that then didn't pull their weight and assumed leading roles within the team.
Remember - we talked about the topic of clearout here - and as long as the names I mention are still there, which is still somewhat of a spine within the team, the disruptive character you associate with a clearout. When you would go and axe Rashford, JZ, Ugarte, Dorgu, Heaven, Yoro, Heaton and Malacia - in terms of numbers that can be seen as an obvious clearout but in terms of meaning for the squad, it doesn't do as much because all of them are fringe players. People would moan about losing talents in Heaven and Yoro but thats it - I don't think anybody considers them vital parts of the squad. With Shaw, Maguire, Dalot and Casemiro - that would be somewhat different because they do play on a regular basis and there is a good chance, that they would play as long as they are here - simply because they are seen as somewhat reliable. It doesn't do much immediate damage but I think it is safe to say it potentially blocks other players from breaking through and to a degree step up.
Again, I know that there are reasons for it, I don't necessarily moan about it - but in the aspect of talking about clearouts, we have been way too gradual with it and the last one who really did it (and probably overdid it) was LVG.
I think interfering with selection and formation is micromanaging. I could see a case when it comes to selection in special situations but not for formations. I see your point, the higher-ups and the manager should agree on a general style, I wouldn't even flinch if the board would ask about being more less defensive or something but the shape of the team should be decided by the person who sees training, current form and is best prepared when it comes to the opponent.
And again - if you think, that we didn't change tactics for over a year, then I can't help you. Because we switched the approach for this season quite significantly.
edit: and an evolution is something that happens over time from a certain state forwards. When you ask why he didn't evolve in his time, well because from his perspective he didn't even get to where he wanted yet, a change wouldn't have been an evolution from his view.
I'd say you saw something that many on here was so adamant to want to see. You interpreted it as him finally succumbing to what you feel is the right decision when there could be a case made for the manage simply adjusting because of availability of players. But there is no point in circling around that, I agree, he seemed to try to engineer something, be it "an exit" or "prove a point" and I also agree that this isn't a good look.
Yeah most likely I agree. And I wouldn't even have flinched. But those teams have functional and competitive teams. Proven by results. We do not. So yes, we were patient with Amorim. But we it was for a reason. And as much as I understand people longing back to our former status, it isn't a good idea to ignore that we currently do not belong in that list of clubs because we are behind the pack. The manager might have been a reason for that but he 100% isn't the only one. And since that downward spiral is going on for quite some time, I probably wouldn't even put him in the top 3 of reasons overall.
CBs aren't less technical players anymore. You are simplifying things for the sake of trying to force your point. Amorims 3-4-3 at Sporting had 2 CMs and 2 AMs. Every attempt to try to tell us that it lacks bodies in the middle is not correct. Not every 3atb formation works the same. And discussions about tactics that are on the level of counting defenders won't really get us anywhere.
For me personally, it feels as if you don't really know what you are talking about. And that you saw things that you wanted to see. The mere notion that there was much of a difference in the one game under Fletcher doesn't bode well.
No doubt about it. But tactics isn't a synonym for formations. And just because somebody doesn't change formation doesn't mean he is inflexible. As I said to the other posters. We significantly changed the approach for this season, went for long balls were more focussed on 2nd balls than we were last season. Maybe you missed it because you already had your mind set on the inflexible-stuff.
I understood Rangnicks quote not necessarily about the squad and the need for a total clear out but about the organisation as a whole and the missing overarching goal of being a successfull football team. He was critical of players due to their commitment and intensity and that might have led to letting a few big names go but the quote wasn't just about players. And as said in more detail to stevoc in this post - a clearout isn't necessarily just about the numbers but on the disruption it brings. For multiple reasons we struggled to have new players step up. And the names we are talking about are still seen as leading figures. So there hasn't really been a real reset since LVG. And the point in all this isn't so much about new players but about the roles some people have within the team. If Dalot is a rotation player who plays every once in a while, we would have this discussion. But instead, a lot of the names are regulars (for multiple reasons) and they are also in a lot of wishful lineups on here. Showing that the real urge to move forwards isn't always there.
Last edited:
I really like watching that channel but he really had a hard on when it comes to Amorim. He also conflated systems and formations and seemed hellbent to show that he was right from the beginning. Doesn't mean that his points are invalid, especially when it comes to opening up to force attacks but for the last two or three videos about United, he went into the analysis with the result already at hand.
Something obviously happened that made his position untenable, so I can't say I feel the club are blameless here, or had an emergency thrust upon them.
It certainly looks like a bad decision to appoint 3 at the back coach to a team that never played that way, but I think there’s a false assumption here that the club wanted him because he plays that specific system, but more likely because he was doing something different that made him successful (although we might question that). What the club was hoping for was (at least a bit of) tactical flexibility. Do you think that’s unreasonable from the club authorities to expect that, even if the manager has said he will not bend?
Now fast forward to 14 months later, ignoring the results, he wasn’t sacked because of playing 3 at the back as main formation, he was sacked because he was simply not flexible at all tactically, as much on the extreme end on “inflexibility” as it gets.
Amorim had two ways for his tenure to last, first was the results and we know how this went, second was to show some promise and tactical flexibility. He failed at both ends miserably so I’m happy the club made that decision, even if we were temporarily at the highest league position.
It would be daft not to sack Amorim, we can still salvage this season. Amorim is an arrogant feck and tried to get fired on top of not performing well.
Said perfectly. Players are often criticised for putting themselves before the club but Amorim on more than a few occasions put his own ego before the club. The EL final which you mentioned being the most egregious example.
Jose is the only other manager that does this but even he only does this when he's ready to hit the self destruct button. Amorim was doing this just for the fun of it.
Get Ashworth back you mean. I‘m delighted Amorim‘s gone, the worst coach we’ve ever had. We looked a whole lot better against Burnley already. Without those missing players.
I meant that within games we rarely change, how we started is usually how we finished.
If we go off that Athletic article it seems Amorim didn't have the appetite for long term evolution.
I could blame each manager for contributing to where we find ourselves, but I largely blame the club for giving most of them too much control and more importantly too much time to mess things up. If we were more proactive and pulled the trigger on some of the managers we've had pst SAF quicker than we did then we could have limited the detrimental knock on affect their respective tenures had.
Ten Hag is a prime example, he should have been removed in the summer of 2024, bottling that decision lead to inevitably sacking him a few months later. Then scrambling around and then hiring another unsuited manager mid-season to make it look like they had a solid plan. A manager who didn't even interview a few months prior, even though he was available, when we were looking for someone to replace ETH.
Well yeah, Amorim had a meltdown in a meeting with his boss and told him he wanted to leave the club. He then proceeded to make public outbursts in two press conferences over last weekend. That's what made his position untenable.
Had he not reacted badly to feedback, informed the club he wanted to leave, then spouted nonsense in public then I imagine he would still be in the job right now.
I've never watched him before but I think he makes some decent points about Amorim's rigid philosophy. And the ultimate futility of sticking so dogmatically to it.
How can you be so confident in the club being blameless for what happened? You must have been there in the meeting?
Ah, yes, I agree with that. He definitely wasn't a good ingame-manager for sure.
edit: well if I think about it, even that is tricky to say given the lack of options he often had
Maybe. But that would be speculation by a large degree. Fairly sure that, in a scenario where he would have taken off and he would have been successful playing the way he wanted, you would have been fairly alone with asking for evolution. I think, the whole "evolution" point is a complete non-story. Nobody reasonable would make the 2nd (or 3rd even) step before the 1st. What you asked him for wasn't evolution you asked him to put his ideas on the sideline if not abandon it completely.
Yeah, you might have a point. Would be interesting to know where we'd be in such a scenario. Because we'd still would have been in need of a plan. And for the longest time, we relied on the manager to have one.
Yes, delaying the sack was an issue. No doubt. Although, I remember at the time, saying that I can understand it when none of the candidates really convinced. ETH deserved to be sacked, I agree, but sacking is just one part of getting back on track and if you don't have a plan what to do next, then stuff becomes actionism really fast. Same reason, I am a bit pissed right now as well I guess. I totally understand the motivation behind the destructive energy but there is a serious lack of constructive one which is needed just as much, probably even more.
How can you be so confident in the club being blameless for what happened? You must have been there in the meeting?
I was.
But seriously though, United have stuck by him for over a year, it's not like Ratcliffe, Berrada or Wilcox woke last Moneday and decided to sack Amorim all of a sudden. Something happened to change that and by following the timeline and the Athletic article about the events of last weekend it seems obvious to me that Amorim was the one who wanted out and instigated his own sacking.
I don't remember saying the club we completely blameless, what do you feel they were at blame for?
Last edited:
Invariably under the Glazers/Woodward regime there was no plan, other than hoping for another Fergie to come along and manage the entire football side of the club for them. Which is part of the reason they gave each manahger too much control over transfers.
The current lot have made mistakes also, no one can say they've been great thus far. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now at least because at least they are trying to modernise the club and make it so we don't have to try to find another Fergie anymore. If we get the structure and recruitment right then we should be able to plug different managers into that set-up without as much disruption and the need for constant re-builds that were the case under the Glazers.
Yepp, I am on board with that. My enthusiasm and trust has been hit, not gonna lie. And depending on what comes next, it could evaporate quite quickly. Lets hope for the best. (although, losing some degree of "involvement" might not be the worst thing... must have written half a book in the last few days
girlfriends starts to think I am losing it)You claimed we played risk adverse football. I bolded this specific statement in my response where I shared our offensive stats for this season. You then inferred I was trying to show we played entertaining football using these stats.
"And yet all the data suggests we played attacking football."
To which you replied:
"So you are saying there's data to prove we played entertaining football?
Have a think about that one mate."I'm not particularly interested in engaging with your attempts to gaslight, mate, so I'll leave you to it.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ruben-amorim-sacked.490912/post-33952584
Other clubs must laugh at us giving Wilcox so much power.
Why would other clubs laugh? The vast majority of DOFs are internal hires and unknowns.
You claimed we played risk adverse football. I bolded this specific statement in my response where I shared our offensive stats for this season. You then inferred I was trying to show we played entertaining football using these stats.
"And yet all the data suggests we played attacking football."
To which you replied:
"So you are saying there's data to prove we played entertaining football?
I'm not particularly interested in engaging with your attempts to gaslight, mate, so I'll leave you to it.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/ruben-amorim-sacked.490912/post-33952584
I'll be honest mate, the first time around I missed that you bolded that. I got pulled into a few similar conversations off the same post. I'm not trying to gaslight anyone.
I genuinely believe we played largely risk averse football under Amorim. Those stats don't refute that assessment, in my opinion.
Yepp, I am on board with that. My enthusiasm and trust has been hit, not gonna lie. And depending on what comes next, it could evaporate quite quickly. Lets hope for the best. (although, losing some degree of "involvement" might not be the worst thing... must have written half a book in the last few days
Definitely not the worst thing mate.
This is crazy when you consider we concede like relegation fodder
I didn't think Wilcox and Burrada (sp?) were considered experts on formations. Just that they'd heard someone (Gary Neville?) blathering on.
What does everyone think of the runors linking him to city
We moved away from managers having control and vetos over transfers, you know we did. He had an opinion, that was it. He didn't approve transfers like those before him.
As I pointed out. He wanted Watkins, the board got Sesko. He wanted Martinez, the board for Lammens.
The type of control EtH had, for example, he could have vetoed players he didn't want to get those he did. Thats not the case with Amorim.
City aren't idiots, unfortunately.
Even if he had veto he cant just pick players from an amazon wishlist. Ten Hag had s veto and he also wanted players like Kane. You have to be realistic with what the club can afford and what makes sense long term.
100%
I just don't think we can credit Amorim for our signings like we discredited EtH for his during his spell. Amorim didn't have the same control.
You think Wilcox, a former professional footballer, commentator and academy director only paid attention to the formation things because he heard Gary Neville going on about it?
It wasn’t because he was at his job watching us play turgid football and dropping points every week?
Interesting take.
Imagine if the reason he’s still in Manchester is for the city job. His close friend is their director now isn’t he.
Ten Hag was super stubborn but even he knew when he needed to change approach to get a big result. If he hadn't we never win that final against City. Amorim would just "stick to his guns" and see what happens. And some people would laud him for it. Blows my mind that we're still seeing the "he has my respect for sticking to his vision before the board tried to interfere and he told them to feck off" argument. Sticking to something that has not been working for 14 months and somehow using the fact that they were so patient with him against the board.
be our luck he'd go and be successful too.Nailed it.
Interesting stats, no wonder everything always felt so fragile.
Why? Apparently it was Berrada who pushed for Amorim and Wilcox had reservations.
5th day anniversary - I’m going to celebrate again tonight
Also, what has Wilcox done here that’s outside the scope of a DoF to be considered “so much power”?
Also, what has Wilcox done here that’s outside the scope of a DoF to be considered “so much power”?
There’s been loads of people criticizing that. Almost everyone seems to recognise that this whole debacle reflects very poorly on INEOS. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right decision to move an underperforming manager out. You don’t fix mistakes by doubling down on them.
I’m not sure how you can complain about the sacking of a coach when you yourself concede that things were dire before the AFCON and injury absences. And I’m not sure how you can say we were faltering in December primarily because of those absences whilst simultaneously claiming things were even worse under Amorim before the absences.
Even in your interpretation, the common denominator there is Amorim, not the absences.
He would be successful as he would get 100% support there.
Amorim’s football was horrendous. Good he’s gone won’t miss him one bit.
- Status